While you are waiting for the DRS Round 3 FOA…

What to do while you are waiting? Aside from continuing to work hard to serve children and families in a high quality manner…

We hope you are writing your grant application. Not thinking about it, but writing.

Actual writing.

There is every reason to believe that many sections of the Round 3 FOAs will be very like the Round 2 and Round 1 FOAs. And, although there was a significant shift between Round 1 and 2, there was a lot more that was the same than was different.

We hope you all have downloaded copies of round 2 FOAs.  Here is one, in case you haven’t…

Head Start and/or Early Head Start – Laramie County, Wyoming
Released: 7/24/13
Due: 10/22/14

  • Doesn’t it seem like the needs in your community (Demonstration of Need) aren’t going to change much in the next couple of weeks?  Right.  You can get right on that.
  • You may be tweaking your program design (within Demonstration of Need) so it would be reasonable to continue your conversations on that and wait.  But not for long…
  • Also, your curriculum and classroom practices (Achieving Early Learning and Development Outcomes to Promote School Readiness) are probably set.  Are you proposing a change?  Maybe.  If not – write, write, write.
  • They ask about your program and agency’s past performance (Past Performance).  Past is the operative word.  No need to wait on that.  There is a need to get that part right given that this is where you address the reason you are in Round 3.  Call if you want.
  • Think about your staff and how you support them (Staffing and Supporting a Strong Early Learning Workforce).  Are you changing that?  Probably not – best to start to write about it.
  • Finally, your organization is organized and it has whatever capacity it has (Organizational Capacity and Governance) so you can write about that. The governance question is interesting and may require a bit more discussion.

One of the things we are doing while we wait is think about the upcoming EHS-Child Care Partnership opportunity.

In fact, as we write this we are also listening to the Build Initiative meeting in Chicago that is being live streamed.  Maybe you are, too?

If you aren’t, consider tuning in tomorrow morning.  It could work – split computer screen – we know you can do a couple of things at once.  It is quite refreshing to hear from Yvette Sanchez Fuentes on a topic that isn’t DRS!

We’ve been really impressed with the speakers so far.  Right now, Jeff Capizzano from The Policy Equity Group is talking about similarities and differences in the RTT-ELC proposal structures and EHS (DRS, ehem) proposal structures.  If you have time or interest, check it out.  The live stream will be available soon but you can see  his  “The Nuts and Bolts of the Application” and “EHS-Child Care Partnership Draft Application Criteria Tool” right now.  A gem.

Are you already thinking about EHS-Child Care Partnerships?  We hope so.  Maybe you are and maybe you aren’t – but make sure you know what your state is doing.  Here is the participant list from the Build meeting.  Who do you recognize?  You are probably in the loop already but if you aren’t, consider reaching out when these people return and express your interest.

Stay in the loop – stay in touch.

Thank you.

***

If you are in Round 3 DRS and need help with your grant application, or if you are a delegate or otherwise qualified agency considering your options, please be in touch. In most cases, we can help you and if not we will certainly connect you with the resources you need. Please do call – 703-599-4329 or email augenblick@foundationsforfamilies.com .

Considering the EHS-Child Care Partnership funding opportunity?  We are following that topic, too.  Please visit our sister blog and learn more.

 

 

Space is Limited at the HS/EHS Recompetition Grant Writing Seminar

Is your agency on the Round 3 DRS list?

Consider this opportunity to participate in a small, in-person, seminar with Zoe Beckerman.  She has been helping agencies prepare to write strong applications since recompetition began.  You and 14 of your colleagues will have an individualized training experience with time for discussion and questions.

You’ll leave with a clear understanding of the DRS Funding Opportunity Announcements – an entirely different animal: complicated and long; the ability to navigate the application process while avoiding disqualifying factors and legal pitfalls; and Zoe’s list of tips for preparing a stand-out application.

The training is in DC on March 10-11, 2014.  Email Molly Nelson or call her at 202-466-8960 to register.  

If, before or after this seminar or the webinar, you need more help with grant writing, updating your community assessment or collecting the required quantitative data you need to support your proposal, we can help you.  This is work we’ve done for agencies in Rounds 1 and 2.

Thank you.

***
If your agency has activated a ‘trigger’ and is facing recompetition – you might want or need guidance. In most cases, we can help you get through this critical period and, if we can’t, we’ll certainly help you find the support you need. 703-599-4329 or augenblick@foundationsforfamilies.com.

DRS Round 3: List by State with Funded Enrollment

On or before February 5, 2014, 103 grantees were informed that they will have to compete for continued funding of their Head Start or Early Head Start programs.  Per 45 CFR 1307, these programs met one or more of seven specific conditions, or triggers, that now put a grantee agency into recompetition status.

In this round, 38 states (including the US Territory of Puerto Rico) are home to the 103 grantees on the recompete list.  The states with the greatest number of grantees on the list are Texas (12), Pennsylvania (8) and Louisiana (8).  The majority (25) had only one or two grantees on the list.

Another way to think about all of this is by the number of children in the programs on the list.

Just yesterday, we got a call from a mom in Texas.  She was thinking about enrolling her child in Head Start but had learned that the program’s grantee was on the list and wanted to know what that meant for her.  This really re-focused our attention on the children (funded enrollment) in these programs and the families who might be entering these programs.

According to the most recent PIR data, there are 65,366 Head Start and Early Head Start children in programs operated by the grantees on the DRS Round 3 list.

In terms of funded enrollment, which states are most significantly impacted?

Pennsylvania           14.76%
Texas                         11.35%
Mississippi               11.27%

The rest of the programs amount to 62.62% of the funded enrollment and each state has less than 7.5% of the total.

Although Louisiana was third in number of grantees by state, their impacted funded enrollment was 5th on the list, or 5.31% of the total funded enrollment.

The states whose grantees have the lowest funded enrollment represented on the Round 3 list are:

Washington             .24%
Nevada                      .15%
Colorado                   .08%

This is the list of the 103 agencies on the DRS Round 3 list and the total funded enrollment by state, per the 2013 PIR.

Alabama

  1. Central Alabama Child Development & CDC, Inc.
  2. Jefferson County Child Development Council, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Alabama = 959

Arkansas

  1. Mid-Delta Community Services, Inc.
  2. Southeast AR Community Action Corporation

Impacted funded enrollment in Arkansas = 615

California

  1. Campesinos Unidos, Inc.
  2. Child Start Incorporated
  3. County of San Joaquin – Board of Supervisors
  4. Inyo Mono Advocates For Community Action

Impacted funded enrollment in California = 4,761

Colorado

  1. Cripple Creek/Victor School District Re-1

Impacted funded enrollment in Colorado = 50

Connecticut

  1. Community Renewal Team of Greater Hartford
  2. West Haven Community House Association Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Connecticut = 1,597

Florida

  1. Capital Area Community Action Agency, Inc.
  2. Childhood Development Services, Inc.
  3. Episcopal Children’s Services, Inc.
  4. Manatee Community Action Agency, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Florida = 3,026

Georgia

  1. Community Action for Improvement, Inc.
  2. Macon Bibb County Economic Opportunity Council, Inc.
  3. Putnam County Board of Education
  4. Reach Services, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Georgia = 2,374

Idaho

  1. Community Council of Idaho

Impacted funded enrollment in Idaho = 812

Illinois

  1. Childcare Network of Evanston
  2. Community Action Partnership of Lake County
  3. Heartland Head Start, Inc.
  4. Quincy Public Schools, District #172
  5. Southern Illinois University-Carbondale

Impacted funded enrollment in Illinois = 2,039

Indiana

  1. Community Organization of Social Concerns, Inc.
  2. Ohio Valley Opportunities, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Indiana = 557

Iowa

  1. Mid-Iowa Community Action, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Iowa = 375

Kansas

  1. Dodge City Unified School District #443

Impacted funded enrollment in Kansas = 292

Kentucky

  1. Community Action Council for Lexington-Fayette

Impacted funded enrollment in Kentucky = 1,289

Louisiana

  1. Calcasieu Parish School Board
  2. Cameron Community Action Agency, Inc.
  3. Child Development Council of Acadiana, Inc.
  4. Delta Community Action Association
  5. Ouachita Multi-Purpose Community Action Program
  6. Pointe Coupee Parish School Board
  7. St. James Parish Council
  8. Webster Parish Police Jury

Impacted funded enrollment in Louisiana = 3,469

Maryland

  1. Montgomery County Dept. of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Community Action

Impacted funded enrollment in Maryland = 648

Massachusetts

  1. Citizens for Citizens, Inc.
  2. Lynn Economic Opportunity, Inc.
  3. South Middlesex Opportunity Council
  4. Worcester Community Action Council, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Massachusetts = 1,522

Michigan

  1. Gogebic-Ontonagon Community Action Agency
  2. Saginaw Intermediate School District

Impacted funded enrollment in Michigan = 1,303

Minnesota

  1. Lakes and Prairies Community Action Partnership, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Minnesota = 258
Mississippi

  1. Central Mississippi, Inc. (Head Start)
  2. Mississippi Action for Progress, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Mississippi = 7,370

Missouri

  1. Central Missouri Community Action
  2. Community Action Partnership of Greater St. Joseph
  3. Grace Hill Settlement House
  4. Youth in Need

Impacted funded enrollment in Missouri = 3,425

Montana

  1. Child Start, Inc.
  2. Deer Lodge County Commissioners

Impacted funded enrollment in Montana = 444

Nebraska

  1. Boys and Girls Home of Nebraska
  2. Community Action Partnership of Western Nebraska

Impacted funded enrollment in Nebraska = 422

New Hampshire

  1. Tri-County Community Action

Impacted funded enrollment in New Hampshire = 278

New Mexico

  1. West Las Vegas Head Start

Impacted funded enrollment in New Mexico = 200

New York

  1. Adirondack Community Action Programs, Inc.
  2. Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center
  3. Economic Opportunity Commission of Nassau County, Inc.
  4. Niagara County Head Start, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in New York = 1,303

Nevada

Little People’s Head Start

Impacted funded enrollment in Nevada  = 99

North Carolina

  1. Cabarrus County Board Of Education
  2. Economic Improvement Council, Inc.
  3. Iredell Community Action Research & Evaluation, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in North Carolina = 900

Ohio

  1. Community Action Wayne/Medina
  2. Portage Private Industry Council, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Ohio = 944

Oregon

  1. Community Action Organization
  2. NeighborImpact

Impacted funded enrollment in Oregon = 1,375

Pennsylvania

  1. Adams County Children’s Education Special Services, Inc.
  2. Armstrong County Community Action Agency
  3. Bucks County Head Start, Inc.
  4. Community Action Partnership of Cambria County
  5. Delaware County Intermediate Unit
  6. Maternity Care Coalition
  7. Philadelphia School District
  8. Snyder Union Mifflin Child Development, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Pennsylvania = 9,645

Puerto Rico

  1. Municipality of Adjuntas
  2. Municipality of Isabela

Impacted funded enrollment in Puerto Rico = 344

South Carolina

  1. Aiken/Barnwell Counties Community Action Agency, Inc.
  2. Darlington County Community Action Agency
  3. Waccamaw Economic Opportunity Council, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in South Carolina = 1,726

Tennessee

  1. Metropolitan Action Commission

Impacted funded enrollment in Tennessee = 1,557

Texas

  1. Avance, Inc.
  2. Bee Community Action Agency
  3. Child Care Associates
  4. Detroit Independent School District
  5. Hill Country Community Action Assn., Inc.
  6. Kaufman ISD Head Start
  7. Motivation Education & Training, Inc.
  8. Region XIV Education Service Center
  9. Scurry Community Services, Inc.
  10. Stonewall Head Start, Inc.
  11. Swisher County
  12. William Smith, Sr. Tri County

Impacted funded enrollment in Texas = 7,417

Utah

  1. Davis County School District

Impacted funded enrollment in Utah = 533

Virginia

  1. Buchanan County Board of Supervisors
  2. County of Culpeper Department of Social Services
  3. People, Inc. of Virginia
  4. Pittsylvania County Community Action, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in Virginia = 1,016
Washington

Bright Beginnings for Kittitas County

Impacted funded enrollment in Washington = 159

West Virginia

Eastern Allegheny Council for Human Services, Inc.

Impacted funded enrollment in West Virginia = 263

Thank you.

***
If your agency has activated a ‘trigger’ and is facing recompetition – you might want or need guidance. In most cases, we can help you get through this critical period and, if we can’t, we’ll certainly help you find the support you need. 703-599-4329 or augenblick@foundationsforfamilies.com.